Tesla Autopilot and FSD Lawsuits: Verdict, Appeal, Recalls (2026)

As of September 2026, the main Tesla Autopilot lawsuit is Benavides v. Tesla, where a Florida federal jury found Tesla 33% responsible for a 2019 crash and the court entered a $242.57 million judgment. Tesla is appealing, so the verdict is not final. Separate consumer class actions over Full Self-Driving (FSD) marketing, a California DMV false-advertising ruling, and open NHTSA investigations are all still moving.

Scope: This page tracks court dockets, agency records and company filings on Tesla's Autopilot and FSD systems as of September 2026. It is general information, not legal advice, and it does not predict how any case will end.

Where the Tesla Autopilot and FSD cases stand (September 2026)

The Benavides verdict: what the jury and the court actually decided

The case arises from an April 25, 2019 crash in Key Largo, Florida. George McGee owned a 2019 Tesla Model S with Tesla's Autopilot feature, and the court's order describes him as the driver when the car hit a parked Chevrolet Tahoe. The Tahoe then struck Naibel Benavides Leon, who died, and Dillon Angulo, who was seriously injured.

The estate sued Tesla in Miami-Dade County circuit court in April 2021, Tesla removed the case to the Southern District of Florida (Judge Beth Bloom), and Angulo's separate suit was later consolidated with it. The amended complaint pleaded strict-liability design defect, failure to warn, defective manufacture and negligent misrepresentation. On June 26, 2025, the court granted Tesla summary judgment on the manufacturing-defect and negligent-misrepresentation counts and let the design-defect count, the failure-to-warn count and the punitive-damages demand go to trial.

The verdict and the fault split

On August 1, 2025, the jury found for the plaintiffs on both the design-defect and failure-to-warn counts and found Tesla liable for punitive damages. The jury also found McGee negligent and split responsibility between the two. Tesla's own filing with the SEC describes the split as the driver 67% at fault and Tesla 33% at fault.

The jury's unreduced compensatory awards were $59 million for the Benavides Leon estate and $70 million for Angulo. Because the jury assigned Tesla 33%, the court reduced the compensatory awards to $19.47 million and $23.1 million. The $200 million in punitive damages was not reduced by that percentage.

That is why the headline numbers differ so much between news stories. The figure that reflects the judgment is $242,570,000, not the jury's raw $129 million in compensatory damages, and Tesla was not found solely responsible.

After the verdict: post-trial motion, appeal and stay

Tesla asked the trial court to overturn the verdict or order a new trial. Its motion argued, among other things, that the expert evidence was unreliable, that the evidence did not show a defect or causation, that Florida law bars or caps punitive damages here, and that vehicle data and statements by Elon Musk were wrongly admitted. On February 19, 2026, Judge Bloom denied the motion and wrote that the evidence admitted at trial more than supports the verdict.

Tesla filed a notice of appeal on March 16, 2026. The Eleventh Circuit case is No. 26-10858. Tesla's filings report that it filed its opening brief on July 2, 2026, and amicus briefs supporting Tesla were filed by, among others, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce with three other groups, the Product Liability Advisory Council, and the States of Florida, Alabama and Georgia.

The plaintiffs filed their brief on September 16, 2026, and further amicus briefs followed on September 23, including from the American Association for Justice and the Florida Justice Association. The Eleventh Circuit clerk set Tesla's reply brief for November 6, 2026, and the docket shows no oral argument date yet.

On March 17, 2026, the trial court approved a stipulation under which Tesla does not have to post an appeal bond. It also stayed execution of the judgment until 30 days after the latest of the deadline to seek Supreme Court review, the denial of that petition, or the Supreme Court's final disposition if it takes the case. Tesla's most recent quarterly report says it has recorded an immaterial accrual for the case while stating that it believes the facts and law do not justify the damages awarded.

A jury verdict is a verdict, not a legal holding for other courts. Nothing here is final until the appeal ends, and the Eleventh Circuit could affirm, reverse or change parts of the judgment, including the punitive damages.

Other Autopilot and FSD crash cases

Mendoza v. Tesla is a products-liability and wrongful-death suit over a February 18, 2023 crash on Interstate 680 in California. The plaintiffs filed in Contra Costa County Superior Court in October 2024, and Tesla removed it to federal court. The docket shows the parties told the court on August 28, 2026 that they had settled and that the case was dismissed without prejudice on September 2, 2026.

The order lets the parties reopen within 60 days if the settlement is not finalized, after which the dismissal becomes with prejudice. The settlement terms are not on the docket, so this page states none.

Other suits, including newer ones filed in 2026, are in the news. This page lists matters with a public court docket and does not treat a settlement or a press report as a verdict. Tesla says in its own filings that it is defending various lawsuits and that no government agency in any ongoing investigation has concluded that any wrongdoing occurred. That is Tesla's statement, and it does not address civil verdicts.

The FSD consumer class actions

These cases are about what buyers were told, not about a specific crash.

In re Tesla Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Litigation (N.D. Cal. No. 3:22-cv-05240, Judge Rita Lin) began in September 2022. Its consolidated complaint seeks damages and other relief for people who purchased or leased from Tesla and alleges claims about the company's driver-assistance technology under state and federal law. In September 2023 the court compelled four of the five original plaintiffs to arbitration, which is a reminder that purchase-agreement arbitration terms can decide whether a consumer claim reaches a courtroom.

On August 18, 2025, the court certified two classes of people who bought or leased a Tesla and paid separately for the Full Self-Driving package, and who bought or leased in California or now live there: one for payments from May 19, 2017 to July 31, 2024 by people who opted out of Tesla's arbitration agreement, and one for payments from October 20, 2016 through May 19, 2017, before the arbitration period. It also certified a narrower class seeking an injunction. The Ninth Circuit granted Tesla permission to appeal that certification order on December 18, 2025 (Losavio v. Tesla, No. 25-7927), and the district court stayed the case on January 5, 2026. A panel of Judges Gould, Bybee and Bress heard the appeal on August 31, 2026, and the docket shows no decision yet.

The classes are limited, and nothing is final. This page cannot tell any individual whether they belong to a class.

Two more matters follow the same theme. Waller v. Tesla (N.D. Cal. No. 3:26-cv-05350) is a proposed consumer class action filed June 4, 2026, which Tesla's filing describes as alleging statements about the capabilities of its driver-assistance technology. A securities class action in the Western District of Texas, filed August 4, 2025, alleges misleading statements to stock purchasers about Autopilot, FSD (Supervised) and Robotaxi. Tesla says it intends to defend both.

California DMV: the false-advertising decision

The California DMV filed accusations against Tesla's manufacturer and dealer licenses in November 2023, alleging misleading advertising of features as tantamount to autonomous driving. After a hearing before an administrative law judge in July 2025, the DMV issued its decision on December 16, 2025, adopting the judge's findings. It concluded that Tesla's use of the terms autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability to describe its driver-assistance features was misleading and violates state law.

The judge had proposed 30-day suspensions of Tesla's manufacturing and dealer licenses. The DMV instead imposed a permanent stay of the manufacturer-license suspension and gave Tesla 60 days to act on the term autopilot, failing which the 30-day dealer-license suspension would apply. Tesla had already changed Full Self-Driving Capability to Full Self-Driving (Supervised).

On February 17, 2026, the DMV announced that Tesla had stopped using the term Autopilot in its California vehicle marketing and that Tesla therefore avoids the license suspension. The decision concerned advertising terms. It was not a ruling on whether the technology is safe.

NHTSA investigations and recalls involving Autopilot and FSD

NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opens investigations in stages: a preliminary evaluation (PE), an engineering analysis (EA), and sometimes a recall query (RQ) that tests whether a recall fixed the problem. An audit query (AQ) reviews compliance with a legal requirement. These are not findings by themselves, and a company recall does not admit that its product is defective. The status below reflects NHTSA's investigation records as of September 2026.

EA22002 closed with NHTSA reporting that it had analyzed 956 crashes reported through August 30, 2023. In about half (489) it found insufficient data, another vehicle at fault, Autopilot not in use, or an unrelated crash. In many of the remaining 467 it identified patterns such as frontal collisions with time for an attentive driver to respond (211), roadway departures after Autosteer was inadvertently disengaged (111) and roadway departures in low-traction conditions (145).

When it opened RQ24009, NHTSA said it had identified at least 13 crashes involving one or more fatalities and many more involving serious injuries in which foreseeable driver misuse of the system played an apparent role. PE25012 says NHTSA found six reports of FSD-engaged vehicles entering an intersection against a red light and then crashing, four of which involved reported injuries.

Separately, NHTSA opened an audit query (AQ26002) on September 3, 2026 into how Tesla certified its driverless Cybercab, which lacks a steering wheel and pedals. That concerns a robotaxi rather than Autopilot or FSD (Supervised); see the Waymo and robotaxi accidents page for how driverless-vehicle claims differ.

Tesla recalls

Federal rules for crash reporting, exemptions and investigations are explained on the federal self-driving car laws page.

Why these are product-liability and consumer claims, and the driver is still responsible

Autopilot and FSD (Supervised) are driver-assistance systems. NHTSA's investigation records describe Autopilot as characterized by Tesla as an SAE Level 2 partial-automation system that assists the driver under direct supervision, and say that in Level 2 the driver remains fully responsible at all times for driving, including complying with traffic laws. Level 2 is not self-driving, whatever a product name suggests.

California's autonomous-vehicle statute covers Levels 3, 4 and 5, so a Level 2 car falls outside that statute's definition and its driver remains the driver. Other states set their own rules. The liability page explains how fault works when a fully driverless vehicle is involved instead.

Because the human is still the driver, lawsuits over these systems tend to run on two tracks. The first is ordinary negligence against a driver who was inattentive or misused the system. The second is product liability against the manufacturer, usually a claim that the design was defective or that the warnings and instructions were inadequate, as in Benavides.

The Benavides jury assigned fault to both. Comparative-fault rules vary by state, so a driver's share can reduce what a plaintiff recovers from a manufacturer, as it did there.

Federal safety rules do not shield a manufacturer from these claims by themselves. The federal Safety Act provides that compliance with a federal motor vehicle safety standard does not exempt a person from liability at common law (49 U.S.C. 30103(e)).

Consumer and false-advertising claims are a different category. They ask whether the company described what the system could do accurately, and the DMV case and the class actions above fall in that group. For a broader look at fault in any automated-driving crash, see who is liable in a self-driving car accident, and for the wider set of product-injury claims, the mass tort hub.

If you were in a crash with Autopilot or FSD engaged

This is general information, not advice for your situation. Injury and wrongful-death cases turn on the facts and the state.

• Safety and reporting come first. Get medical care, call the police and get a report number, as after any crash. Note in the report whether a driver-assistance feature was engaged.
• Preserve the car and its data. Modern vehicles record data about speed, braking and whether assistance features were engaged. In Benavides, Tesla challenged the admission of data from the vehicle, and the trial court rejected that argument, so this evidence can matter. Avoid repairing, selling, scrapping or wiping the vehicle until you have decided what to do, and ask whoever holds the car in writing to keep it as is.
• Photograph everything. Include the screen, warnings, the road, signage and lighting, and save any dashcam footage.
• Manufacturers report some crashes; you have no duty to. Under NHTSA's Standing General Order, the companies it was served on (Tesla files reports under it) must report certain Level 2 crashes to NHTSA, including those involving a fatality, hospital treatment, an airbag deployment or a vulnerable road user, where the feature was engaged at or within 30 seconds of the crash. The order imposes no reporting obligations on individual consumers. You can file your own safety complaint with NHTSA at nhtsa.gov or through its Vehicle Safety Hotline, 1-888-327-4236.
• Deadlines are set by state law. Statutes of limitations for injury, wrongful death and product claims differ by state and by claim type, and some are short. See statutes of limitations by state and wrongful death laws, and check the deadline for your state early.
• Read what you signed. Purchase and software terms may include arbitration or other clauses, as the class action shows.
• Get the basics of your own crash right first. The general steps in car accident laws apply whether or not assistance features were on.

What to watch next

• Benavides appeal (11th Cir. No. 26-10858): Tesla's reply brief is due November 6, 2026, and an argument date has not been set.
• Ninth Circuit (No. 25-7927): a ruling on the class-certification appeal could come at any time.
• Mendoza: the dismissal becomes with prejudice unless the case is reopened within 60 days of September 2, 2026.
• NHTSA: watch RQ24009, PE25012 and EA26002 for closures, recalls or upgrades, and Tesla's quarterly SEC filing for updates to its legal-proceedings note.

Deployment and legal status for driverless services is covered on the self-driving car laws hub.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did Tesla lose the Autopilot lawsuit?

A Florida federal jury ruled against Tesla in Benavides v. Tesla in August 2025 and the court entered a $242.57 million judgment, including $200 million in punitive damages. The jury assigned Tesla 33% of the responsibility and the driver 67%. Tesla is appealing to the Eleventh Circuit, so the outcome is not final.

How much was the Tesla Autopilot verdict?

The judgment against Tesla is $242,570,000: $19.47 million to the estate of Naibel Benavides Leon and $23.1 million to Dillon Angulo in compensatory damages (after reducing the jury's larger awards to Tesla's 33% share), plus $200 million in punitive damages. The jury's unreduced compensatory awards were $129 million in total.

Is the Tesla Autopilot verdict final?

No. The trial judge denied Tesla's post-trial motion on February 19, 2026, and Tesla appealed. As of September 2026, briefing in the Eleventh Circuit is still under way, with Tesla's reply brief due November 6, 2026. Execution of the judgment is stayed during the appeal.

Is Tesla Autopilot self-driving?

No. NHTSA's records describe Autopilot and FSD (Supervised) as driver-assistance systems that Tesla characterizes as SAE Level 2, which means the driver must supervise and remains responsible for driving. Tesla's driverless robotaxi and Cybercab operations are treated separately from these consumer systems.

Is there a Tesla FSD class action lawsuit?

Yes. In re Tesla Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Litigation in the Northern District of California has classes limited to California customers who paid separately for the Full Self-Driving package and are not bound by an arbitration agreement, certified in August 2025. The Ninth Circuit heard Tesla's appeal of that certification on August 31, 2026, and the district case is stayed. This page cannot say whether any particular person is in the class.

Did California ban Tesla Autopilot?

No. The California DMV decided in December 2025 that Tesla's use of the terms autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability in marketing was misleading. In February 2026 the DMV reported that Tesla stopped using the term Autopilot in California marketing, which avoids a 30-day suspension of its licenses. The decision was about advertising, not a ban on the feature.

Who is at fault in a crash with Autopilot or FSD on?

The driver of a Level 2 vehicle remains responsible for driving, and a driver who was not paying attention can be found at fault. A manufacturer can also face product-liability claims, such as design defect or failure to warn. In Benavides the jury assigned 67% to the driver and 33% to Tesla. How fault is shared depends on state law and the evidence.

Is Tesla under NHTSA investigation for Autopilot or FSD?

As of September 2026, NHTSA has open investigations into FSD traffic-law violations (PE25012), FSD in reduced visibility (EA26002), the adequacy of the Autopilot recall remedy (RQ24009) and the timeliness of Tesla's crash reports (AQ25002). Opening an investigation is not a finding that a defect exists.